Comments (35) | Add a comment
LETTERS
The issue isn't birth control, it's the Bill of Rights
Tools
To the editor:
In response to Richard Mundy's Saturday letter on the birth control controversy:
This is not about birth control but about the protection we are all afforded under the First Amendment. It is apparent that Mr. Mundy is not familiar with the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It amazes me that liberals such as Mr. Mundy and those in the mainstream media are quick to defend a single atheist protesting a manger depicting the baby Jesus, when placed for public viewing at Christmas, as a violation of the First Amendment. But when Christians -- and, in particular Catholics -- want this same guarantee applied to them, they are demonized.
Mr. Mundy also fails to address the fact that many of the Southern Baptist churches have joined together and formed their own insurance company to self-insure medical benefits for their employees, not all of whom are Baptists. Because they own their own insurance company this "Obama accommodation" does not apply to them, so they will be subject to millions of dollars in fines if they don't provide the morning after pill, which the Obama administration considers a birth control pill all employers must include in their employee health care coverage despite the fact that many religions consider it medication that causes an abortion.
In the mind of Mr. Mundy and other liberal Democrats, the Constitution applies only when it suits their ideology. I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it.
Barry Perea
Las Vegas
One-way street
To the editor:
The Feb. 1 article, "Foreclosure rulings issued," says the (state) Supreme Court will hear appeals from the state mediation program. This legislatively mandated program is yet another example of the desire to do good gone bad.
No doubt, the mortgage holders, usually banks, should be required to produce sufficient documentation to prove their claim to a property foreclosure right.
But isn't this a two-way street? It seems that the Nevada Legislature was trying to turn the foreclosure documentation issue into a one-way street -- the mortgage holders and the rest of us who are current in our mortgages be damned.
Who was helped here by this legislation? The mortgage holder who isn't getting paid, homeowners who are current with their payments, those owning their property outright, or the estimated 8,000 homeowners in whose cases mediators said the foreclosure claimant had insufficient documentation, thereby voiding the claim? All the while most of these 8,000 occupants will continue to remain in the house, most likely paying nothing.
At mediation, if the defendant cannot prove he owns the property outright or present documentation showing that he has been making proper payments, then why is he still occupying the property? If the mortgage holder cannot produce all the required documentation and the defendant cannot prove that he owns the property outright, is making proper payments or that there is a temporary mutual agreement to pay rent while the property is in dispute, then the court needs to place the property into a receivership and evict the occupants.
At this point, the property can be rented and managed by a court-appointed property manager until the right of ownership is resolved.
Richard Rychtarik
Las Vegas
Hand out
To the editor:
On Feb. 5, the Review-Journal (Page 5B) reported that 27 U.S. congressional representatives voted in opposition to a bill prohibiting the use of welfare debit cards in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. They claimed as their excuse for voting 'No' that some of their constituents lacked convenient access to grocery stores.
This news item raises questions.
How is it that welfare debit cards became legal tender in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos in the first place? Which congressional districts do these 27 'Nay' voters represent? Why would their constituents be living in neighborhoods served by these businesses and not grocery stores?
Observed reality leads to some unpleasant assumptions and a final question. Generous welfare, offered with very modest restrictions, erupted out the Great Society programs enacted during the Johnson administration. Support for ever more easy access to government largess almost invariable comes from members of the Democratic Party, elected and re-elected by generations of constituents who have become dependent upon government policies favorable to their desires and lapsed into ambivalence toward the traditional constraints of taking personal responsibility for individual behavior.
So, considering the sad reality of life in the districts represented by these 27 jackasses, why would anyone ever vote for an incumbent Democrat?
ALLEN HAWKES
LAS VEGAS
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
ERT is not only used for birth control. I use birth control for PMS and menopause problems. It makes my life better and I can function easier and sleep better. It does much more but, the list is too long for here. I also used birth control over 40 years ago to not have children that I knew I could not take care of and I know I did the right move because I was responsible for me not to bring someone into the world that I would hurt and not be a good parent to because of being young and unstable in life. Most of teens are young and unstable and it is the woman who suffers. The boys can walk away. I also did not want to go through the heartache of abortion. The birth control pill gave me time to grow up and be a better person for me and I did not hurt anyone else. It also helped with heavy PMS which I suffered and still do. What is it that the religious right believes that it must be their way as being responsible? And I will repeat; the pill is used for many other health reasons to help women then birth control. Who's values? Who's freedoms? Who's responsible principles? And it is expensive and getting more expensive every year. It costs from near $50 to $200 per month. It depends what a woman takes. American values; I have a home and I pay taxes. I am not on assistance. I work. I am "decay"? Oh yes, I got the pill 40 years ago from Planned Parenthood for $1 per month. I do my best to look and listen to all sides. But, the religious right? I don't understand. And I don't believe I am weak as an American either.
well we see once again that leftwing dems spin the free "contraceptive" issue into someting it isn't. - they are called "contraceptives" for a reason, if they have an "alternate medical use" then insurance will surely cover them for that use - but "mandating" free (at Our expense) contraceptives so women can play and not take "responsibility for what may result is part of the decay we are experiencing in this country. It's that old saying if you play you pay...and that goes for birth control.
Besides that - WE need more Americans being born and raised and educated about this country and it's it's values, principles & freedoms...and we got them.
We need people in office that have American Values, Principles & traditions. The type that made US the strongest, bravest, most prosperous nation on earth. Restore America - Vote RIGHT
@erikvegas. Funny how you destroy your own argument. They do not pay taxes, yet get federal assistance. Funny how that works is it not. So they should get money from the federal government, be fully exempt from any laws when receiving that money, and be allowed to operate however they wish. Last I checked, the supreme court even ruled that is not allowed.
Second point, and one that got republicans now in a box, is that they want ANY employer to deny any kind of coverage. So if an employer thinks something is too expensive, or that you do not need it, they can deny coverage. Oh yea, that bill is right now on the senate floor being debated. Republicans have some weird knack to double down on the dumbest things. Also what is also funny about all this is, republicans are using religion for this yet are ignoring the Catholics on every other issue they bring up such as the middle east, Israel, immigration reform etc. And lastly charity organizations get alot of their funding surprise surprise, from government entities. The same entities that wish to knock out other people's needs and assistance. If the dems are warring with religion, then how come you never see a bill trying to make 1)churches non tax exempt,2) that the federal government should stop all funding to religious charities, and 3) that they do not prosecute or go after religious organization with bills stripping them power or their tax exempt status when they go into the political arena. Funny how it comes from one side, the republican side.
@ LasVegasLibertarian: If you don't need anything from the government, please promptly stop using all roads, interstate highways, court systems, and all other state and federal provided services. While you're at it, you can also start buying your medication from unlicensed doctors operating out of the back of tile shops and hacking your own meat off cows - since you certainly don't need the FDA either. Lastly, if you're going to attempt to berate people about their spelling, look up the proper way to spell "DOOFUS". Thanks!
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.
In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.
In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."
At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216,0,3392996.story
"Jwebb wrote on February 16, 2012 12:16 PM: Name one legitimate health condition that is caused by lack of sexual activity."
Neurosis.
Interesting that states (such as Iowa) have required all employers to provide health insurance that includes free contraceptives with no exceptions for religious organizations. (Iowa's law was signed by a Republican governor). Seems there was no problem as long as Republicans were in charge. But let a Democrat propose the same idea and the religious right is fighting mad. Interesting.
Why do liberals lie?
I dont understand how this argument got to where people are saying that "the republicans want to send women back to the 1950"s". This is about a government that is requiring religious organizations that operate non for profiit charitable businesses, IE primarily hospitals and other health care industries, to pay for a service or product that specifically violates the tennants of their religion. No one wants poor women to not have access to birth control. The people we are talking about here HAVE JOBS, most of them are well paying jobs. They can afford to purchase what ever form of birth control they would like to use, and they have been doing it for years. I am not religious but I believe that any religious organization should be allowed to conduct its day to day operation in such a way that it does not violate their religious principals. This mandate specifically violates that and I also believe that it violates the first ammendment as it is effect dictating to these organizations how they must practice their faith.
Erik
Hater, I suggest you read Bastiat's The Law. Just because I am against governmental mandates, does not mean that I am against "access". What's preventing these women go to Planned Parenthood and get "Free" birth control pills? Last time I checked, Walgreens and other pharmacies are still selling the pill and will continue to do so. Nobody is advocating that we deny anyone access, as that is a free choice. So the argument becomes because it's not free, there is no access. That is akin to a teenager making the argument that by making him earn the money to purchase a vehicle is denying him access to trasportation.
That logic is fallacious on so many levels. So by asking people to be financially responsible for thier own care and pay the $20-$40/per month is denying access. Since when is sexual activity a requirement to be healthy? Name one legitimate health condition that is caused by lack of sexual activity. Why should I have to pay for other's private activities? If you are able to make the decision to have sex, then you should be able to accept the responsibility that comes with that. I am not responsible for your family planning decisions.